The App Store makes almost no money for Apple, as evident by their latest numbers (PDF):
Revenue for Software, Service and Other Sales (including sales from the Mac App Store in addition to sales of other Apple-branded and third-party Mac software and Mac and Internet services.) account for $729M, divided by the $28,270M they made the fourth quarter makes it about 2.6% of their total revenue, this does not account for costs for maintaining the infrastructure and paying for bandwidth. Revenue growth is smaller than for many other categories. However, it does add value to the devices that make up their real income.
why wind is ever considered over solar? I mean, if the Sun dies, so do we, whereas if the wind stop blowing... no power.
As far as a solar power plant is concerned, the sun 'dies' every evening, and stays 'dead' until sunrise the next day.
Exactly, but as there are some solutions, then we can factor in the fact that peak power demand is usually in the daytime at about 30% more power demanded at noon compared to the low at about three in the morning. Though most (probably all) alternative sources are best when they work in tandem, for example there is likely to be more wind when there is less sun and the other way around.
This won't be a problem in practice until/unless wind power reaches around 10% of generation capacity. I hope it will be an issue eventually, but it is far from it at the moment
At that point (>10%) the wind power generators should be spread over a very large area, reducing the probability that the entire installed base of generators will generate a low output at the same time. There are also other things to consider such as the likelihood that calm days will be sunnier days (not always, but often) therefore somewhat increasing the output from solar power. Combined with a smart grid and other sources of electricity such as nuclear and gas and tidal power there you have a recipe for a coal-free future.
There is also the ability to use pumped/stored hydropower combined with wind power to respond to peak demand or a short time when all other sources of at a low.
Because in 4 years (see 2016) when the MPEG-LA is forced to make a decision on what to do about H.264, everyone will be at there mercy. So between now and them, if your media support has been flourishing, and suddenly comes to a screeching halt, your market share will as well.
The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal.
Industry Standard and / or proprietary can also be 3rd party extensions and vice versa.
Flash is one of them. 90%+ of the devices connected to the web has has a Flash Player (be it full or mobile). A huge number of multimedia rich websites are Flash based. Facebook uses Flash for its video. A year ago, all major sites use Flash one way or another (be it ads or content).
Flash *IS* an Industry Standard. Every normal user and their mother, and every web designer and their mothers have been using it for the past 10 years.
Is it an multiple vendor agreed upon standard? no.
If you argue Flash isn't Industry Standard, you must also argue that the old VGA port was never industry standard either despite having a 99% penetration rate. IBM threw together some wires and called it a day. A day that everyone used for a few decades up until DVI/HDMI started cropping up.
You are confused about the meaning of Industry Standard. An industry standard is not "something very common", an industry standard is something adhering to a very specific set of rules as specified by a Standards Body such as W3C, VESA, CEN or WSC. While Flash is not an industry standard.
Apparently this is how Apple "stymie industry-standard practices":
Now, from what I can tell, the first part of that story is true – Google and many others have figured out ways to get around Apple’s default settings on Safari in iOS – the only browser that comes with iOS, a browser that, in my experience, has never asked me what kind of privacy settings I wanted, nor did it ask if I wanted to share my data with anyone else (I do, it turns out, for any number of perfectly good reasons). Apple assumes that I agree with Apple’s point of view on “privacy,” which, I must say, is ridiculous on its face, because the idea of a large corporation (Apple is the largest, in fact) determining in advance what I might want to do with my data is pretty much the opposite of “privacy.”
Then again, Apple decided I hated Flash, too, so I shouldn’t be that surprised, right?
[...]
I don’t know, but when I bought an iPhone, I didn’t think I was singing up as an active recruit in Apple’s war on the open web. I just thought I was getting “the Internet in my pocket” – which was Apple’s initial marketing pitch for the device. What I didn’t realize was that it was “the Internet, as Apple wishes to understand it, in my pocket.”
Does not make any sense to me. First the author claim that Apple should have actively asked him do define the security settings and because it did not Apple is somehow evil. No operating system ever can actively ask their users to set up everything to a microscopic level, there has to be a default somewhere. It would take days to get through all the settings on my computer. I would say "fuck this" after fifteen minutes of configuring panels where I left almost everything set to the default anyway.
How could Apple agree with your stance on privacy unless you tell Apple your privacy wishes? The author seems to be well versed in computers and smartphones, I am sure he could figure out how to tell Apple how his privacy should be managed.
Then he somehow thinks Flash is an industry standard. This is what Apple allows to run in mobile Safari and disallowing non-standard (arguably proprietary) third party extensions is not really how you stymie industry-standard practices.
well that was because apple was willing to only pay the fee as if they had done it from the start.. and completely ignore the fact that hey had not licensed it prior to selling products using it.
I agree that that would have been a problem for Apple, however, due to exhaustion because Qualcomm paid Motorola for the chips used by Apple the license was already paid. Then Motorola re-negotiated their bilateral license with Qualcomm and now Motorola wants money from Apple for the time that Qualcomm had already paid, thus trying to get money twice plus some extra.
2.25% is an enormous sum of money, when you consider that a device might use patented techs from hundreds of companies. If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.
It would be impossible at even 0.1% since there are 2987 patents in 1729 families. 2.25% will never fly, especially for a single patent (probably a patent family actually). An average licensing cost of 0.01% per family would be 17.29% of the cost of the device. There is no way 2.25% can be considered FRAND.
I'll take some number from my butt (definitions of my butt may vary, but in this context it is random site on internet).
1.186 billion mobile broadband subscribers.
Let's say that half of these are on a 3G chip that somehow requires the Motorola 3G license: 593 million.
If these devices sell for an average of $20 we would have 11,86 billion in sales for these devices.
If Motorola wants 2.25% of the sales of these devices that would mean $297 million, a very significant number considering it is a single patent of a large portfolio of 1729 patents (yes, one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine).
Imagine if each of these patents would warrant an average licensing cost of 0.1% rather than the 2.25% that Motorola wants, then we would look at a licensing cost of more than the sales price to license 3G technology for the device. 2.25% does not smell FRAND to me, but I am no patent lawyer, I only pretend I know stuff on the internet.
Newton resolved this flamewar coupla hundreds of years ago, apparently said something about standing, shoulders, giants. And it was not Apple's Newton, mind you.
I don't know, perhaps if Apple would actually innovate and create something new they wouldn't have to resort to patent trolling and could afford to buy judges.
Oh my, and so spins the wheel and we are back at the seven hundredth flamebait thread about whether Apple invents or not... *sigh*
The results of the research, performed by the government agency for fisheries (not the nuclear industry) actually indicates that, on balance, fish growth is actually promoted, as are many other species of birds etc.
In fact that very report says that in the short term opportunistic species will rise at the cost of the more vulnerable species and in the long run all species (biomass) will decrease
You do of course realise my point was not that Apple should help you for free, not at all. My point was that your statement that Apple's technical support is equivalent to them helping upgrade your apps to their latest mandate is completely false, and your followup post proved my point most spectacularly. And by the way, having experienced DTS, it's not all it's cracked up to be. A quite frequent response is "It shouldn't be doing that. Our engineers have asked if you can please log a bug" (and I've reported stuff three years ago that still hasn't even been acknowledged). At work, we have an off-the-shelf product and some customisations done to it by a third party. Somewhere, buried deep in the contract, is a rider clause saying that if we ever upgrade that off-the-shelf product, the third party must upgrade all of our customisations for free. And I'm told this is fairly common.
O'rly? You wrote "You get two DTS calls. That's it. After that, it's incredibly expensive. I don't call that "help"."
I realize not that I was trolled/. instead of trying to have an intelligent conversation, sorry I misunderstood, now I know your true colors.
You made no indication of who the owner of the was, I assumed it was either a company that does not exists anymore or some other abandonware. How do you expect me to know it was Blizzard you meant about when you did not even hint that is was a game you were talking about when you used the generic term "app"? Especially when you wrote "I have an app that doesn't work anymore under Lion. How do I get them to upgrade it? Sure, they'll help Adobe upgrade their apps, but the rest of us don't get anything." You also hint that the company you so perfectly obscured in your non-description is not of a similar or greater economic/political impact like that of Adobe one can only assume they are a smaller shop and therefore would be more welcoming for a licensing deal or even purchase. Next time, can you please be more up-front about it and you will not be irritated when people misunderstand you?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, they sure are creeping up to the millions on Windows platforms.
Citation Please
if this is a Mac virus/trojan/malware (which it by all accounts seem to be) then the number is indeed increasing.
The App Store makes almost no money for Apple, as evident by their latest numbers (PDF):
Revenue for Software, Service and Other Sales (including sales from the Mac App Store in addition to sales of other Apple-branded and third-party Mac software and Mac and Internet services.) account for $729M, divided by the $28,270M they made the fourth quarter makes it about 2.6% of their total revenue, this does not account for costs for maintaining the infrastructure and paying for bandwidth. Revenue growth is smaller than for many other categories. However, it does add value to the devices that make up their real income.
why wind is ever considered over solar? I mean, if the Sun dies, so do we, whereas if the wind stop blowing... no power.
As far as a solar power plant is concerned, the sun 'dies' every evening, and stays 'dead' until sunrise the next day.
Exactly, but as there are some solutions, then we can factor in the fact that peak power demand is usually in the daytime at about 30% more power demanded at noon compared to the low at about three in the morning. Though most (probably all) alternative sources are best when they work in tandem, for example there is likely to be more wind when there is less sun and the other way around.
This won't be a problem in practice until/unless wind power reaches around 10% of generation capacity. I hope it will be an issue eventually, but it is far from it at the moment
At that point (>10%) the wind power generators should be spread over a very large area, reducing the probability that the entire installed base of generators will generate a low output at the same time. There are also other things to consider such as the likelihood that calm days will be sunnier days (not always, but often) therefore somewhat increasing the output from solar power. Combined with a smart grid and other sources of electricity such as nuclear and gas and tidal power there you have a recipe for a coal-free future.
There is also the ability to use pumped/stored hydropower combined with wind power to respond to peak demand or a short time when all other sources of at a low.
Because in 4 years (see 2016) when the MPEG-LA is forced to make a decision on what to do about H.264, everyone will be at there mercy. So between now and them, if your media support has been flourishing, and suddenly comes to a screeching halt, your market share will as well.
The license (PDF) says on page four:
The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal.
So $10,000 for 10 TB? That's not exactly what they're looking for.
$0.12*10000 = $1200. Still expensive though.
Industry Standard and / or proprietary can also be 3rd party extensions and vice versa.
Flash is one of them. 90%+ of the devices connected to the web has has a Flash Player (be it full or mobile). A huge number of multimedia rich websites are Flash based. Facebook uses Flash for its video. A year ago, all major sites use Flash one way or another (be it ads or content).
Flash *IS* an Industry Standard. Every normal user and their mother, and every web designer and their mothers have been using it for the past 10 years.
Is it an multiple vendor agreed upon standard? no.
If you argue Flash isn't Industry Standard, you must also argue that the old VGA port was never industry standard either despite having a 99% penetration rate. IBM threw together some wires and called it a day. A day that everyone used for a few decades up until DVI/HDMI started cropping up.
You are confused about the meaning of Industry Standard. An industry standard is not "something very common", an industry standard is something adhering to a very specific set of rules as specified by a Standards Body such as W3C, VESA, CEN or WSC. While Flash is not an industry standard.
Does not make any sense to me. First the author claim that Apple should have actively asked him do define the security settings and because it did not Apple is somehow evil. No operating system ever can actively ask their users to set up everything to a microscopic level, there has to be a default somewhere. It would take days to get through all the settings on my computer. I would say "fuck this" after fifteen minutes of configuring panels where I left almost everything set to the default anyway.
How could Apple agree with your stance on privacy unless you tell Apple your privacy wishes? The author seems to be well versed in computers and smartphones, I am sure he could figure out how to tell Apple how his privacy should be managed.
Then he somehow thinks Flash is an industry standard. This is what Apple allows to run in mobile Safari and disallowing non-standard (arguably proprietary) third party extensions is not really how you stymie industry-standard practices.
So, did anyone manage to delete the threat? Google.com is still running.
Meh, I guess nobody really reads the warning dialogues anymore.
well that was because apple was willing to only pay the fee as if they had done it from the start.. and completely ignore the fact that hey had not licensed it prior to selling products using it.
I agree that that would have been a problem for Apple, however, due to exhaustion because Qualcomm paid Motorola for the chips used by Apple the license was already paid. Then Motorola re-negotiated their bilateral license with Qualcomm and now Motorola wants money from Apple for the time that Qualcomm had already paid, thus trying to get money twice plus some extra.
for initial negotiated fees i agree.. but for fees applied to a product made by a company that knowingly attempted to doge the fee..it isn't.
Me neither, but this link (found in other comments on this article) claims Motorola repeatedly declined payment from Apple.
2.25% is an enormous sum of money, when you consider that a device might use patented techs from hundreds of companies. If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.
It would be impossible at even 0.1% since there are 2987 patents in 1729 families. 2.25% will never fly, especially for a single patent (probably a patent family actually). An average licensing cost of 0.01% per family would be 17.29% of the cost of the device. There is no way 2.25% can be considered FRAND.
As mentioned above, the 'reasonable' part doesn't apply if you don't pay when you should.
Source for the second (and hopefully last) time :)
Well... It's sometimes hard to pay what one should when:
[...] Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple [...]
source
I failed at copying and pasting a link, the second link that I got the number 1729 is: http://final.dime-eu.org/files/Bekkers_Martinelli_D6.pdf
I'll take some number from my butt (definitions of my butt may vary, but in this context it is random site on internet).
1.186 billion mobile broadband subscribers.
Let's say that half of these are on a 3G chip that somehow requires the Motorola 3G license: 593 million.
If these devices sell for an average of $20 we would have 11,86 billion in sales for these devices.
If Motorola wants 2.25% of the sales of these devices that would mean $297 million, a very significant number considering it is a single patent of a large portfolio of 1729 patents (yes, one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine).
Imagine if each of these patents would warrant an average licensing cost of 0.1% rather than the 2.25% that Motorola wants, then we would look at a licensing cost of more than the sales price to license 3G technology for the device. 2.25% does not smell FRAND to me, but I am no patent lawyer, I only pretend I know stuff on the internet.
gig 1 |gig| noun
1 chiefly a light two-wheeled carriage pulled by one horse.
2 a light, fast, narrow boat adapted for rowing or sailing.
I too would like to know if it is half a boat or half a carriage.
Newton resolved this flamewar coupla hundreds of years ago, apparently said something about standing, shoulders, giants. And it was not Apple's Newton, mind you.
My point exactly!
Thankfully, their model is a failure.
Record profits each year for the last seven years in a row. I wish I made failures like that!
I don't know, perhaps if Apple would actually innovate and create something new they wouldn't have to resort to patent trolling and could afford to buy judges.
Oh my, and so spins the wheel and we are back at the seven hundredth flamebait thread about whether Apple invents or not... *sigh*
Apparently he had pains for three weeks and could not work during that period.
I can't speak for Australia, but in Sweden as recently as dec 2, 2011 a co-pilot had to be taken to the ER after his plane was hit by green laser.
The results of the research, performed by the government agency for fisheries (not the nuclear industry) actually indicates that, on balance, fish growth is actually promoted, as are many other species of birds etc.
In fact that very report says that in the short term opportunistic species will rise at the cost of the more vulnerable species and in the long run all species (biomass) will decrease
You do of course realise my point was not that Apple should help you for free, not at all. My point was that your statement that Apple's technical support is equivalent to them helping upgrade your apps to their latest mandate is completely false, and your followup post proved my point most spectacularly. And by the way, having experienced DTS, it's not all it's cracked up to be. A quite frequent response is "It shouldn't be doing that. Our engineers have asked if you can please log a bug" (and I've reported stuff three years ago that still hasn't even been acknowledged). At work, we have an off-the-shelf product and some customisations done to it by a third party. Somewhere, buried deep in the contract, is a rider clause saying that if we ever upgrade that off-the-shelf product, the third party must upgrade all of our customisations for free. And I'm told this is fairly common.
O'rly? You wrote "You get two DTS calls. That's it. After that, it's incredibly expensive. I don't call that "help"." I realize not that I was trolled /. instead of trying to have an intelligent conversation, sorry I misunderstood, now I know your true colors.
You made no indication of who the owner of the was, I assumed it was either a company that does not exists anymore or some other abandonware. How do you expect me to know it was Blizzard you meant about when you did not even hint that is was a game you were talking about when you used the generic term "app"? Especially when you wrote "I have an app that doesn't work anymore under Lion. How do I get them to upgrade it? Sure, they'll help Adobe upgrade their apps, but the rest of us don't get anything." You also hint that the company you so perfectly obscured in your non-description is not of a similar or greater economic/political impact like that of Adobe one can only assume they are a smaller shop and therefore would be more welcoming for a licensing deal or even purchase. Next time, can you please be more up-front about it and you will not be irritated when people misunderstand you?
That may be a problem, but if the application is important to you perhaps you could work out a licensing deal with the owners?